DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Superman Returns: Special Edition (US - DVD R1)

Gabe thinks the Man of Steel got a bum wrap on his flawed return to film...

Feature

After 5 years away from Earth, searching the exploded remains of his home planet Krypton, Superman has returned. The only problem is that in his absence, the world has moved on. Lois Lane is engaged with a son, and has won a Pulitzer Prize for an editorial entitled "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman". But the depressed Kryptonian isn't the only man back in the limelight, Lex Luthor has rebuilt his empire, and thanks to the fact that Superman wasn't around to testify at his hearing, is free from prison.

Superman Returns, in this humble man's opinion, should've been garbage. First of all, we live in a time where the character has become painfully quaint. A world where even Tim Burton's representation of Batman seems too childish. When it was released less than 20 years ago, audiences were shocked by its PG-13 nature. Batman can be coloured much darker than Burton represented him, but Superman? Superman's a boy scout, a relic, and boy scouts and relics belong in museums, not in modern cinemas.

I'll also mention the sad fact that I don't really like Richard Donner's original film, or films if you count the second movie, and I knew that director Bryan Singer wasn't planning on rebooting the series. Superman Returns is a semi-sequel to Superman II. Donner's films have aged poorly, and I honestly see them in the same campy light I see the old '60s Batman series. I appreciate their existence, and readily acknowledge that without the original film I wouldn't have Spiderman or Batman Begins, but I just don't like the film, and was not looking forward to a multi-million dollar direct follow-up, no matter who was behind the camera.

And who was behind the camera, but the man who ditched the X-Men franchise. X-Men 2 is most likely my favourite superhero film ever made, and it ended on one of the best cliff hangers a fan could possibly ask for, the reflection of the Dark Phoenix. I can't help but be "very disappointed" in Singer for his decision to leave the franchise in the hands of Brett Ratner and a series of Fox executives with only money on their minds. I blame Singer as much for the utter failure of X-Men 3 (which was released a little over a month before Superman Returns) as I do anyone else.

Watching the film in theaters this past summer, I was already expecting to be under whelmed and unimpressed, and shockingly enough I wasn't, not completely. The film opens with the same credit music and title graphics as the original. Everything's happy and silly, but as Bryan Singer's name faded, so did all those dated, warm-fuzzy feelings. Despite the production's assurances that Superman Returns would be a continuation of Donner's films, this is a much darker, and more modern film. It isn't dark in that bloodthirsty way most modern comic book films like Batman Begins or Blade tend to be, Superman Returns is a shockingly melancholy film. It's concerned with emotion and levity even more than spectacle or entertainment. It is this sad streak that was the film's ultimate downfall, but it's also the only thing that made the film at all memorable to me.

Warner Bros. shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that their $270 million investment didn't show a return based on the returns and public opinion of Universal's 2003 comic book release, Hulk. Hulk was an artistically and emotionally ambitious film released to an audience that wanted to see smashing. It's a flawed film, but one that I adore, and one that cannot be accused of being unoriginal. The overall idea of Superman Returns, a superhero film featuring an infinitely powerful character feeling sorry for himself and lost in the world, is very similar to that of Ang Lee's giant green box-office flop. If Hulk was a superhero movie by way of a Chinese opera, Superman Returns is a superhero movie by way of a trashy romance novel as written by someone like Arthur Miller. Kind of.

I had to ask myself what Singer saw in the character, other than a fetishistic love for the original film. What was it about this superhero that made him willing to leave a series he built from the ground up in the incapable hands of a bunch of Fox bean counters? Well, Singer makes very personal films. X-men 2 (in my opinion his best film), is a pretty obvious metaphor for feeling out of step with the rest of the world. Singer seems to have an abundance of angst and alienation, and Freud would tell you this was due to the fact that he was adopted and is gay. Who could possibly be more alienated than a homosexual in America but a mutant. And who could possibly be more alienated than a mutant but an alien. And, of course, who could be more alienated than an average alien on earth? Why, an alien that is the last remaining member of his entire species.

The adoption angle is key, as everyone knows (or at least everyone with a general knowledge of the character) that Superman himself was adopted. This is magnified by one of the film's most maligned plot points, one that I cannot go into without a bit of spoilage. Skip the rest of this paragraph if you haven't seen the film. I am speaking of the inclusion of Superman's son by Lois (which must be disturbing to Lois, as she had her mind erased at the end of Superman II, and must not remember ever having sexual intercourse with the Man of Steel), which at first seems like a cheap ploy for drama, but by the end of the film actually makes sense. As Superman stood over his sleeping child, willing to let his child be raised by mortals as he was, I finally got that the character was suppose to bring about an emotional circle for our hero. It does create a problem for the possible sequel though.

The majority of average people (i.e.: not critics) I've spoken to complained about the lack of action in the film. I have to agree. I really could've done with a fistfight between Superman and someone like Zod, or Braniac, but we only get a few scenes of the Man of Steel saving people from large-scale disasters. There is one ingenious sequence at about the 40-minute mark where Superman saves a falling jet full of reporters, and sets it down in a baseball field. The ingenious part comes in not with the actual action of saving the plane, which is nice, but in the fact that Superman makes his reappearance to the world in the most public way possible. It's funny, and humour is lacking in the rest of the film. The whole thing is rather down hill from this point.

But the problem isn't so much the lack of action, but the lack of normal superhero intrigue. Somehow, with more millions of dollars at their disposal than any film in history (allegedly), Singer and company forgot to write an interesting overall story. X-men seemed like an unfinished film due to Fox's budget and time restraints, but despite the brief run time Singer managed to introduce characters and conceive of a threat for them to quash. With Superman the writers had a chance to really open up the canvas with a pre-existing character that was already part of the public zeitgeist, and they have Lex Luthor concoct another real-estate scam? Don't get me wrong, it's a really great scam, but we've seen that already.

Luthor is still an intriguing character, thanks in no small part to Kevin Spacey who strikes a nice balance between funny and frightening. This isn't the harmlessly wicked Luthor of the Donner films, but a very angry Luthor bent on revenge. Well, revenge and a real estate scam. It's too bad the character is so neglected by the writing staff. I would've pushed the opposing nature of the hero and villain a little more.

With a runtime of two and a half hours, it's maddening that almost nothing really happens. The theme of alienation and solitude is a nice one, but when the film meanders like a Kabuki show on downers it's all a bit too much. By the time Luthor's plans finally come to fruition the 90% of the theatrical audience was checking their watches. A long movie isn't a problem so long as there's still a bunch of plot to plough through, but here it's indulgent. I understand that the importance of Lois and her fiancé’s relationship is important, but sticking by them during two elongated, Superman-less action scenes is unnecessary (not to mention a waste of a massive budget). I would've cut these scenes, which would be unfortunate because it would mean cutting James Marsden, a good actor, from another superhero movie (the guy was royally screwed on X-3).

Cinematically, this is a freaking gorgeous film, from cinematography to costume design (I like the new look, the old suit looked like a Halloween costume). I wish that Metropolis itself was more stylized, as only the Daily Planet set looks like anything special. I'd heard somewhere that Singer was looking to create an Art Deco look to the film to set it in the same sort of non-existent, style-bending timeline, like the Batman animated series, or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. I see a bit of this in the finished film, but not as much as I'd really like. Despite this, the look of the film is striking, just in a slightly less overtly stylized way, and I'm happy to say that it looks a Hell of a lot classier than the Donner films.

I can't wrap this rather lengthy little review up without mentioning Superman himself, Brandon Routh. Routh had some huge shoes to fill, as Christopher Reeves' rendition of the character is one of the most popular and enduring film characters of all time. Even I liked him in the role. Singer was smart to cast an unknown, and his choice paid off in spades. I can't imagine Nic Cage, or any of the other name actors once attached to role holding a candle to Routh, who embodies both the Man of Steel and his bumbling alter ego positively perfectly. He's a joy all around, and I hope he has a successful career in the future. He deserves it. Between Routh and Hugh Jackman, Singer is officially 2 for 2 in the field of casting unknowns as popular comic book characters. I'll also give some quick props to Parker Posey, who's adorable and hilarious in her supporting role. Another great choice.

Video

Big budget blockbusters are filmed in digital HD more frequently these days thanks to George Lucas (even if you hate the man's films, you have to acknowledge his contributions to modern film). Superman Returns is no exception. Unfortunately, the fact that I know it was meant for an HD presentation means I'm less willing to let video quality inadequacies slide.

Overall the image is very pretty, and so long as sequences are well lit they look great. Colours are bright, and edges are crisp and solid. Problems arise in darkness. Dark backgrounds are wrought with noise and blocking. Shadowed skin tones suffer from some cross-colouration, and even digital blocking in some of the more severe cases. I'm very curious about the Blu-ray and HD DVD releases. Did Warner Bros. put all there effort into the next gen formats and dump on those of us still unable, or unwilling to shell out the cash for a next gen player, or do all the transfers suffer from these problems? This is a top tier presentation on some levels, but it's nothing as stunning as other filmed in HD (not HD-DVD) releases like Revenge of the Sith, or even Wolf Creek.

Audio

DTS fans will be bummed by the lack of a DTS track, as the only track available is an old fashion 5.1 Dolby Digital one. Perhaps a DTS track could've been even more spectacular, but I find complaints very hard to come by here. This is an equally aggressive and subtle track that strikes an amazing balance at even high volume levels. The LFE track is almost too much at times, but it rarely overpowers the rest of the track. Dialogue is clear and centered, and discernable even during louder sequences. The immersing quality of the mix is best displayed during the sequences on New Krypton, where one can hear the sound of the ground creaking with growth and the sky rocked with thunder.

Extras

There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a double dip on this DVD. Every extra here points to more available, and the possibility of a sequel is looking more and more realistic. This 2-disc set isn't a complete disappointment, but is lacking nonetheless.

The first disc is completely barebones. The second disc starts with almost 3 hours of behind the scenes production diaries. It's very, very obvious that there was a lot more of this stuff, and the editing choices here seem random and curious. There is a whole bunch of good info, and viewers do get a first hand view of the filmmaking process, but there is something definitely lacking. The footage is best when it shows us a bit of Singer's dark side. According to several accounts from the set of X-Men 2 the director can be very hard to work with. Alan Cumming, Halle Barry, and other cast members have stated unspecific problems on several occasions since the film's release. Only notoriously nice Hugh Jackman has kept his mouth shut, though apparently his relationship with Singer was also rocky.

I'm also happy so much attention is paid to Spacey and Routh. Spacey seems to have become a bit of a diva over the years, but his stand-up comic roots make him ever entertaining to watch work. Routh appears to be the nicest guy in the world. He's always warm to the behind the scenes crew, almost painfully modest, and one can really see the reasoning behind Singer's selection. Surprisingly, Kate Bosworth, who played Lois Lane, is somewhat ignored in the footage. I'm curious about this, as I thought she was the one weak link in the cast. Perhaps there were some problems being saved for another DVD release.

The deleted scenes are incomplete and consist mostly of quiet moments on the Kent family farm. Singer has spoken publicly about a trashed scene of Kal-El visiting the remains of Krypton, and the production diaries feature another deleted scene between Superman and Daily Planet boss Mr. White. My guess is that there's at least another hour of deleted footage, which may explain the extraneous budget. The best of the included scenes is one where Clark realizes his mother is dating an old family friend. He deals with the revelation in a surprisingly selfish fashion, adding to his selfless final act arch.

The features are finished off with a brief featurette about the compositing process made on old footage of Marlon Brando. The fact that this is the closest we get to an in depth look at the digital effects of the film (there's some footage of the mo-cap process on the production diaries) is another clue pointing to a deluxe release in our future. There's also a small collection of trailers for Superman Returns and various video games featuring the character.

Overall

A flawed film, no doubt, Superman Returns is better on a second viewing. It's melancholy nature may turn off most viewers, but those willing to take such a sad journey are lucky enough to enjoy some top notch performances and a striking visual look. It isn't quite the overwhelming romantic tear-jerking Singer wanted it to be, but it also doesn't deserve the mediocre fate it seems to have inherited. The DVD has a flawed video transfer, but a great audio presentation, and some decent special features. I've no doubt that a double dip is in our future, but I think at least a rental is in order. Super-fans really should give it a second chance.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

The R1 ultimate edition (which is available at Best Buy) had only a few of the diaries and they were also cut for some stupid reason. The R1 ultimate edition has all of Bryan Singer's production diaries, uncut.

As regards a deluxe release at a later date, you may be right, but doesn't the R1 ultimate edition include a disc devoted to Bryan Singer's video diaries? Perhaps that's Warner's way of saying that the extra stuff is available, but only if you're willing to pay the big bucks.

George Wright wrote: I don't find this type of nitpicking really that ridiculous. I'm just trying to state the obvious. "Superman Returns" should've been an epic film but instead comes off, for me personaly, as big & forced.

The plot was a rehash land grab scheme of Luthor's. The romance between Superman & Lois was pathetic. Superman spying on Lois & her son were just creepy. The list goes on.

The really sad thing is that if "Warner Bros." & the powers that be, really sat down & took the time to flesh out a great story, this movie could have rivalled "Batman Begins". That is what pisses me off. The film studios are more concentrated on making a big, quick return financially off of the film itself as well as any & all merchandising than making a memorable movie. "Warner Bros." does this all to well (prime examples the last 2 "Batman" films from the 90's & "The Matrix" films).

Gabe & Chris please explain to me the answers to the 3 plotholes I posted in my first post, I'm all ears & yes, I do know that if you try to turn the Earth backwards everything goes into space.

Your comments in this post are logical and I agree to a certain extent (as stated in my review). The nitpicking I'm refering to has to do with these "plot holes" as you call them. First of all, I'm not a person who gets too uptight about the facts concerning fictional characters and their powers, specifically when I don't think the rest of the movie is effected by these inconsistencies. In the case of X-Men 3, I noticed simular problems (though a lot more than 3), and focused on them because the rest of the film was so weakly dependant on them. In the case of Superman Returns, I find your problems entirely unimportant in the grand scheme of the film. I agree that the introduction of Superman's child isn't the greatest idea, but don't see why it couldn't have happened in the psudo-sequel world of Superman Returns.

Second, I'm not sure you understand the definition of the phrase "plot hole". Arguments could be made for the child, again, but I don't see the Kryptonite planet as effecting the flow of logic in the film's plot (especially if you look at the film as a standalone, which you obviously do not), and I know that the stadium scene is in no way a plot hole. Unrealistic, perhaps, but then, so is a man with lazer eyes.

You insistance that the stadium scene makes this a bad movie is a text book case of nit picking. I see in your second post that you actually have a solid grasp on what you found wrong with the film, but when one of your top three listed reasons for not liking the film is the fact that extras don't act in a realistic manner, you appear to be looking for reasons to complain.

But what the hell.

1) Kal-El went to the remains of Krypton in a space suit and space ship. Perhaps these both protected him from Kryptonite. Also, while away from the earth's yellow sun he has no powers, and thus perhaps in the universe of this film, he no longer has a problem with Kryptonite while powerless. (as stated by Mr. Cheese, I see now)

So far as being able to lift the land mass of at the film's end, I thought it was pretty well established in the context of this film that Kryptonite weakens Superman, but doesn't isntantly drain him. Maybe he got a big enough sun charge to hold himself together for 10 minutes while lifting the mass, he did almost die at the end of it.

2) I don't care at all about an unreleased Richard Donner film when considering the plot threads of this film. I don't care what Donner intended in his comic version, Donner didn't make Superman Returns, and even though Bryan Singer paidd homage to him, he was not setting out to make a direct sequel. Undoing an entire film by turning time backwards is a weak way of trying to write one's self out of a corner. If Bryan Singer and his writers say that Superman is a father in the movie Superman Returns, then they're telling the truth.

3) Honestly, all I can say to this problem is that you're nit picking and it's only a movie. I don't see any reason to discuss it.

What you need to understand is that in the long history of a character as old as Superman, there will be discrepancies, and that there is more than one version of the character. If you try to tie up contimuity you'll come up empty handed and frustrated. I could complain about the fact that Ra's Al Ghul isn't "suppose" to be Japanese, American, or the man that trained Bruce Wayne, but I'd be unrealistically assigning my personal favourite version of a character to a film universe where he did not live.

That's all I really have to say about that, I'm not willing to get into an argument about this. I agree with your general comments, but not your fevered search for logic in a fantasy world. Sorry.

All right then, and once again, forgive me if my information is wrong:

1) Superman, he is exposed to Kryptonite. Normal situation, exposed to a "regular" chunk for 5 minutes. After 5 minutes, chunk taken away, he doesn't jump up and go, doesn't he take a minute or two to recover? Ok, maybe not, but it takes him a few minutes to get back to full strength. So, for a chunk "Roughly half the size of Rhode Island", even though it wasn't pure Kryptonite, for what was it, 3 minutes? For that, he would take a longer time to recover. And also, just for the sake of argument, since the Kryptonite merged with the crystal, perhaps it lost some of it's strength and became less potent. There is no point of no return for Superman, that's why he's Superman. What's that you say? Doomsday? Well, again, Kryptonite, varyinge levels of strength, Doomsday... Yeah, a Kryptonian "monster" that's much stronger than Superman. Yes that would kill him.

2) I admit I laughed a little at this. You wanted point 1 to be less like E.T., when this has more elements of E.T. in it. Sounds like a good story, and with Donner as the writer, it's probably out of this world. So, I'm confused, how is this in the same continuity of "S:TM" and "SII" (or "SII:RDC" )?

3) Right, so what does being on a baseball team have to do with your level of fright? Was the plane not slowing down as it fell, due to Superman's intervention? That would make me look in curiosity, why is that plane that's on fire be slowing down as it plummets?

Of course, I know this won't convince you, and quite frankly, I know nothing will, your mind is made up, you're going to hate the movie and nothing I say or do will make you think otherwise. I'm just trying to rationalise a ficticious film about a man who is invincible to anything, except a rare chunk of his radioactive homeworld.

I leave now with a quote from Jor-El: "This is no fantasy - no careless product of wild imagination". Suspend your disbelief for 2 and a half hours, you'll find you'll enjoy more films like this. If you want to talk real plausability, then let's talk about the physics of a lightsabre or a transporter from Star Trek...

Thanks for the response Mr. Cheese! But.., 1.) o.k. I get the whole sun powers Superman stuff. But with Superman lifting the chunk of Krypto-land, thats roughly half the state of Rhode Island, out of the water, & getting it into space, Supes is exhausted & passes out, falling to Earth & scaring three year olds for miles around. The way I saw this sequence was Superman absorbed so much kryptonite radation that he pushed his body over the max, to the point of no return. No matter how much sun he absorbed it wouldn't have helped. Even if he did survive all of that, the recovery scene should have been more, I don't know, believable somehow, less E.T. like.

2.) Superman - not the father! If he is, there had better be a believable plot thread to this. In the current issues of "Action Comics" the recent storyline has a meteor falling to Earth with a young boy inside that possesses almost the exact powers that Superman has. The government, with the help of Supes, takes him into custody. That is until Superman finds out that the government wants to keep the boy as a top secret project. Superman "takes" the boy away from the gov. &, with the help of Lois & under the guise Clark Kent, secretly adopts him, telling the adoption agency that he's a lost relative. As this is all going down three space pods land on Earth to reveal General Zod, Ursa, & Non, ready to give Superman some heavy duty payback. This story is actually really well done, so far, & some die-hard Superman fans that I know say this should have been the story for "Superman Returns". I totally agree. Who is the author to this comic story? Richard Donner.

3.) Sure I can buy some people being scared stiff, but, a whole stadium full of people including 2 baseball teams!? That I don't buy.

1) Krypton (as far as my knowledge goes, perhaps this is a different continuity) exploded because of the Kryptonite build-up. Now, the Kryptonians on Krypton, do they have powers? No. Why? Red sun. Now Kryptonite, like Superman is sent to an environment with a Yellow sun, so, like Superman, it will be stronger and will react differently. As for "New Krypton", did you not see Superman in the hospital, dead for at least a few seconds? The Kryptonite DID affect him (I guess you missed the blisters on his hands as well, that's hard to see, I missed it as well first time around, just more of a factoid ) So it didn't make him keel over, if you're sick, and you HAVE to do something, do you not push yourself stronger? In "S:TM", ok, 2 nukes and he almost "died", ok, well, this was his first encounter with Kryptonite, caught him off-guard, he now can control it, block it out.

2) So? Who's to say that they didn't sleep together AFTER "Superman II"?

3) You look up in the sky and see a plane on fire crashing towards you. Logical thing to do: Run, like you said. However, in moments of panic and terror, sometimes you can't help but stare. Not to mention if you're scared stiff, you can't run, hence the wording "Stiff".

I don't find this type of nitpicking really that ridiculous. I'm just trying to state the obvious. "Superman Returns" should've been an epic film but instead comes off, for me personaly, as big & forced.

The plot was a rehash land grab scheme of Luthor's. The romance between Superman & Lois was pathetic. Superman spying on Lois & her son were just creepy. The list goes on.

The really sad thing is that if "Warner Bros." & the powers that be, really sat down & took the time to flesh out a great story, this movie could have rivalled "Batman Begins". That is what pisses me off. The film studios are more concentrated on making a big, quick return financially off of the film itself as well as any & all merchandising than making a memorable movie. "Warner Bros." does this all to well (prime examples the last 2 "Batman" films from the 90's & "The Matrix" films).

Gabe & Chris please explain to me the answers to the 3 plotholes I posted in my first post, I'm all ears & yes, I do know that if you try to turn the Earth backwards everything goes into space.

Wow, that's what I call nit picking. I'm not even going to touch it. I actually have the same answer for all three of those problems, but I'm pretty sure it would fall on deaf ears. If you can't enjoy a motion picture on any kind of non-literal level (not to mention the fact that this is a film about a humaniod alien that absorbs the sun's rays and becomes very strong), why do you even bother?

If we're gonna talk "plot-holes" in fantasy cinema why don't we talk about the fact that turning the world backwards would not only send everyone and everything flying into space, but the fact that it doesn't turn back time.

There are pleanty of reasons not to like a movie (specifically this one) but this kind of determination is down right silly to me. Though I do agree Bosworth was all wrong for the role, something I left out of my review.

This was one of the biggest dissapointments of 2006. The film had so many holes in it, it was like trying to watch a person with no teeth smile. Add to the fact that Bryan Singer has never read a copy of a "Superman" comic book, & you'll see that "Superman Returns" never really had a fighting chance for true success.

The cast was likable at best. Routh was o.k. as Superman/Clark Kent but he's no Christopher Reeve. As I watched "Returns" I couldn't help but think how Reeve would've played out certain scenes. Bosworth totally sucked as Lois Lane. She was just a damn mess & I won't even mention the kid who portrayed the ..., a kid. Spacey was decent as Luthor, but, Hackman (yes, Gene f***ing Hackman!) was better in the role. I'm sooooo damn tired of seeing Hackman being dumped on. Gene Hackman should get the respect he so muchly deserves, because he is one of the last of the great Hollywood actors. The rest of the cast is a waste, period.

The plotholes: 1.)Superman visits the remains of Krypton. If the remains of Krypton are chunks of space rock, isn't this safe to say that the remains of Krypton are actually KRYPTONITE THAT CAN KILL SUPERMAN!? This also goes for the lifting of the island at the end of the film. Superman should have been so irratiated with Kryptonite radiation he should have been renamed son of Hulk.

2.)Superman ain't no daddy - I don't need a Maury Povitch paternity test for this one. In "Superman II" Superman gave up his powers to be with Lois. Even if he did get her knocked up she wouldn't know who the father is (magic kiss at the end of the film). In Donnor's version of "SII" Supe-baby turns the world backwards (again!) causing everything to revert back to the way things were before the Phantom Zone villians' vacation on Earth, this includes impregnating Lois. Even if Supes forgot to pull out, he probably would've killed her (think about it).

3.)The airplane save - great sequence, until the end. Superman is slowly controlling the plane, the camera pans down to the crowd & the players on the field & NO ONE IS RUNNING FOR THE EXIT! If I saw a plane that size, on fire, trying to land in my lap, I sure as hell would at least make every effort to head for the hills, Superman or not!

I could go on, but you get the drift. I guaran-damn-tee this will be in the five dollar bin at Wal-Mart next Xmas.

Braniac is the ideal choice. If Singer's universe takes Donner's into consideration, I don't think we really need more rogue Kryptonians. Braniac is the planet's computer in the original films, the way it is in the animated series, right?

Well, I just watched Superman Returns for the first time, and I must say that I really enjoyed it. And it's interesting why that is.

Having just gotten my 14-disc Superman Deluxe set, I watched the first two original movies (sans the Richard Donnor Cut of II) for the first time in a very long time. First time ever in widescreen too, I believe. So while having those fresh in my mind, watching Superman Returns right after those, I think made a big difference. Being that SR is basically Superman III if we wanna think of it that way, seeing the Man of Steel as an updated 21st Century version with modern special and visual effects brought back that magic that now I wished the first two had, in terms of movie making magic.

Now then, as those of you who know, SR has a lot of homages to the original film both in settings and in dialogue. I found it humorous (in a good way) that they used some of the same dialogue from the first movie in this one.

I also liked the fact that this movie was a bit darker than we have come to expect from a Superman movie. I like the fact that Superman can show his anger when it comes to fighting bad guys. Kevy Spacey made a much more believable Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman ever did. I also like the fact that they used the same M.O. of the Gene Hackman verison, the "beach-front" property land deal.

About the perceived lack of action sequences, I didn't really notice. I thought each action piece was well placed and situated within the script/story. Now for the sequel, yeah, I wouldn't mind staying close with the comics for the idea of a villian. I'd love using Brainiac as a villian. It'd be a first for sure.

Gabe Powers wrote: RalphFiennes wrote: Is it not a contradiction to praise Parker Posey's "hilarious" performance and Kevin Spacey's "balance between funny and frightening and then refer to the film post-airplane-scene as humourless?

After the airplane rescue, the humour is sucked out of both of those characters, relatively, and we aren't given another pure comedy scene until the end, a scene I didn't find very funny.

This doesn't matter though, because my statement was referring to the entire film, of which there were nearly 2 more hours of. Besides, if you're going to nitpick me, at least quote me accurately. I said "humour is lacking", which implies humor is still present.

I wasn't trying to nitpick and I'm sorry if I offended you. I was trying to establish what your opinion of the film was as it wasn't completely clear to me personally.

I agree with you about Pirates 2 by the way, it was really dull, with only a few moments of genuine interest. Found myself yawning through it and I kept thinking "I shouldn't be yawning in this..."

I missed the ratings thing, and obviously it was a big factor, but I also think that, to begin with,"Pirates" had a wider appeal than "Miami Vice," and obviously people had high expectations of the former, expectations that were met. Also, I hadn't meant to compare the films story-wise, obviously it's apples vs. oranges.

ticktock wrote: "Let's face it: it's the West's fascination with pirates and Johnny Depp's performance that draws us to these flicks, not their actual "quality" That's exactly it, and I think this applies not only to "Pirates" but also other movies that lack quality but are huge successes.

HagenDarth wrote: I'm surprised some of you think PIRATES was a mess...a bit overlong, I agree. As far as Pirates vs. Miami Vice is, the appeal of the former was much greater than "Miami.

Comparing 'Pirates' to 'Vice' is another asinine statement. "Miami Vice" was rated R, which nowadays limits your box office take exponentially. 'Pirates' was not only rated PG-13 but was also a sequel to a very succesfull movie; it's like comparing apples to, I dunno, rocks?

As for 'Pirates' it was a bit of a mess...it was all over the place and in need of a good editor. A movie like that, which I mean to say is a fluff popcorn movie, should be no more than an hour and forty five minutes, or two hours at the most. Stretching it out to over two-and-a-half hours was a gross mistake - there were action sequences and scenes there for no express purpose other than to be there. Let's face it: it's the West's fascination with pirates and Johnny Depp's performance that draws us to these flicks, not their actual "quality"

The saddest part for me was that I actually enoyed the first Pirates, at least a lot more than I thought I would. It looked like they had a good movie in there somewhere, but it was just a mess. The ending was, unfortunately, good enough to make me curious about the next installment. It was like they had a great beginning for the third movie, but needed to make a middle film to set it up.

Gabe, you've been saying the same thing I have for the past three years since the first Pirates came out. It amazes me people are going to rush out to get that filth tomorrow and totally pass up Miami Vice (which BTW, was a brilliant, underrated film.)

The airplane sequence is the best part of this movie. That really captures what the Superman character is about. The plot was weak and having Lex Luthor with another land scam was not the way to go. This needed a big bang of a villian for Superman to go toe-to-toe with. See the Richard Donner cut of Superman II for a way to fight super villians.

I thought it flat out sucked personally. Pirates that is. But like I said in the review here, I had no interest in the character of Superman either. I only bothered seeing the movie in theaters because of Singer.

Pirates 2 is also a family movie, so it has a much wider appeal than Superman Returns. People also went to see it based on their experiences with first film (that also happened with Matrix Reloaded). I thought it was thoroughly bland though.

"...and I think this misuse of cash says something about the creative minds behind the film..." this can be said about too many films. As far as PIRATES 2 is concerned, one of the main reasons it blew "Superman Returns" out of the water was it had a main character audiences loved and wanted to see again. To put it simply, more people were interested in seeing Jack Sparrow again than Superman. It also helped that it was a pretty entertaining movie (as long as you can hold up your bladder for 2.5 hours...).

To me X-Men 2 is the best Comic book movie of all time followed by the Original Superman, with Batman begins getting a solid nod aswell..

I am a huge fan of Singer and really wanted him to Finish the X-men run...however I did want them to do Superman right so having him at the helm was great.... I think he did a good job witht he script he was givin/chose. but I can't help and think X-3 would have been AMAZING under Singer.

I hope he makes 2 more movies for the Superman series and maybe even try his hand at Batman...

Well ticktock you certainly know you box office stuff, I'll give you that, and I think you hit the nail right on the head when you said it's all subjective.

I don't really follow box office grosses that closely, so I can’t comment on the validity of anything you said. I’m not even trying to dispute it. I simply object to the way in which a film’s budget and/or the money it makes are used to somehow legitimise it in the face of ‘competition’ from another movie (a la X3 and Superman Returns). People seem to be obsessed with the monetary side of things, rather than looking at things from an artistic standpoint.

I gave the above as examples of a few films that didn't - for whatever reason - make a lot of money. As you said yourself, some of that was to do with them opening on a limited number of screens, or being marketed poorly (in the case of Fight Club I couldn’t agree more). But surely this goes some way towards validating my claim that box office success isn’t indicative of quality?

If a studio throws a ton of money into marketing a film, and it opens on a larger number of screens, it’s pretty much guaranteed to make a lot more money than a low-key film that opens on a limited number of screens. You said as much yourself. The opinion held by certain people is that this makes them ‘better’ films than the ones that make less money. It is this that I do not agree with.

If you take a look at that all-time ‘domestic’ box office chart and then compare it with the all-time top 250 movies you find that only one of those films is in the top ten of both. If box office earnings really are a key indicator of quality, I would expect to see more of an overlap.

Of course I guess you can argue that the top 250 is only representative of those people who visit IMDb and vote, and that is probably a very narrow cross-section of the public. As I said before, you hit the nail on the head with the ‘subjective’ comment. My entire argument (for want of a better word) is subjective, based on my own preference for films that both entertain and challenge me. That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy mindless blockbusters from time to time, but I don’t hold Terminator 3 in the same regard as The Godfather.

I gave Superman Returns two chances in theaters (regular and IMAX) and sadly I was disappointed both times. This wants to be a great film...but it just isn't. There's something in there that just doesn't work for me and I understand why Singer placed it, but it just doesn't work.

Chris Gould wrote: There are many great movies that performed 'poorly' at the box office. Films like Oldboy and Lady Vengeance are artistically superior to s**te like Jackass 2 and Little Man, but they didn't perform exceptionally well at the UK/US box office because they are subtitled.

No, they didn't perform well at the box office because they were only released on 28 and 13 screens, respectively; Little Man opened on 2,500+ screens and Jackass over 3,000...it's absurd to compare the two. Actually "Lady Vengeance" and "Oldboy" had greater per-theater attendance averages at their peak than either "Little Man" or "Jackass".

Chris Gould wrote: How well did Donnie Darko do on its initial release? What about Fight Club? The Shawshank Redemption? They all have strong word-of-mouth followings now, but they didn't exactly set the box office alight.

Again, "Donnie Darko" was released on just a few more screens than "Oldboy" or "Lady Vengeance"...comparing a movie's box office gross that is released in fewer than 100 theaters to a movie that is released in over 3,000 is asinine. "Fight Club" and "Shawshank Redemption" are widely reknowned as being mishandled by studio marketing, thus they didn't really gain a cult until video...but if you look at their week-to-week drop offs you'll see that they were quite small. There are two components to a movie's box office success: the opening and word-of-mouth. You can have a monster opening weekend but if you get poor word-of-mouth you're going to see 70% falloffs, whereas you're a good movie (say, for example, "Casino Royale&quot you're going to see smaller drop-offs that can offset a mediocre opening. It is widely acknowledged that the studio is responsible for a movie's opening weekend success and the movie's quality results in the rest of its take; in the case of "Fight Club" and "Shawshank Redemption," they started off opening on such a low number that even small week-to-week dropoffs don't make much of a dent, and that's really not completely to blame on the studios - those are hard movies to market to broad audiences. I remember 'Shawshank's' ads made it out to be a prison drama and "Fight Club" came off as some Jean Claude Van Damme-like arena fighting competition.

Chris Gould wrote: Week after week, mind-numbing, middle-of-the-road c**p makes its way to the top of the box office by 'word of mouth'. Presumably from the mouths of people without taste.

Well taste is really subjective; who's to say that your taste is more valid than anyone else's? Some people actually go to the movies to be entertained by mindless drivvel because they see enough seriousness in their regular lives...is there anything wrong with that? I mean, movies are escapism, right? So why is my taste in question if I'd rather kill two hours watching "Jackass" than two hours mulling over something like "Syriana"? Not to say that I fall into that category, but many do.

But back to the box office argument: if you look at the top ten all-time in domestic grosses and then go to IMDB to look at the user ratings and RottenTomatoes to look at the critical reviews, you'll notice that virtually every one of them were praised by both segments (except, of course, the infallible PHANTOM MENACE). You can't get into the upper eschelon of box office success WITHOUT strong word-of-mouth.

...and since when did REVENGE OF THE SITH get an HD-DVD release? The review said it has one...

Hopefully, we'll have an extended director's cut edition with the Krypton deleted scene and some more in a couple of months, I'll check on the UBS for the other Singer journals...I have to kinda agree on the fact that STM and SII look outdated, first since there are no pcs on the Daily Planet, and also the way the sets look, they are outdated (even the way the heat vision appears), but both STM and SII are great movies that made superhero history, and not until now that I saw the Donner cut of SII, I realize how close it is to Spiderman 2 (I filmed I enjoyed a lot) in the way the character has his inner feelings challenged...and about the alienation thing, I can connect to Superman in that I'm an immigrant who was supposed to follow a path, and be submissive, well, I guess not!

Tricky Dicky wrote: I am no Xmen expert by any stretch of the imagination, but as a viewer of all 3 films I preferred the Last Stand to the first 2 by miles. I thought it was much better than the first 2 though the dialogue at times was a bit juvanile, they had far more action which is want I want from films of this kind. Even tho I know the comic fans want character development more.

Was disappointed in SR but I do love the first. Too much love story BS. I mean they are comic books who gives a s**t about love, bring on the action!

You don't know what you're talking about. Super Hero Comics/Shows/Movies are just as much about the emotions of the characters as they are about the action. X3 for example, is an abomination that seems to enjoy taking a huge dump all over some of the most brilliantly written charaters in comics history. Superman Returns however, gets really into the character, so effectivly that I think it's even better than Batman Begins, which lacks emotion at certain points.

LLcruize wrote: It is curious that the transfer of Returns is not that great. I wonder if that was a conscious "art" decision made by Singer? I saw the movie in an HD theater and it looked great. So I am rather surprised the DVD is not as sharp. I do know that during specific scenes, such as the ice berg, even in the HD theater it had a haze to it that I took as being purposeful effect. The HD DVD version is the same way. For intance, I especially noticed a lot of noise during the shuttle sequence and with interior shots of the jet and its passengers in particular. Conscience effort or not, I would have preferred it not to be the way it looks.

Amen brother Chris! LOL. My mom is convinced general movie audiences (specifically American) are a bunch of idiots! Though I don't share the same fondness of say Old Boy that you do, I never even heard of the film until the video/DVD release.

Now, being one of those aforementioned Americans, I tend to defend my countrymen (and women). But I can not argue the fact such fare as Jackass 2 takes up multiple screens in our local theaters and makes close to 100 million bucks. Yet films such as you mentioned Chris and many more English speaking films are relegated to one screen at the only art house theater within a 100 square mile radius, if we are lucky. Most times the films never even see the light of day in my area, or they get a one weekend engagement.

The reason being, hype still sells films. If you can't hype it, no one is going to see it and you can't give it away to local multiplexes because they only want to put on movies that are going to fill the 20 or more theaters they have.

This is why DVD is becoming such a formidable format, which is leading to the ultimate way we will get movies in the future, via download. DVD allows for a film such as Old Boy, Office Space, Austin Powers, etc, to build a fan base via the old fashioned word of mouth. Star Wars in 77 and Halloween in 78 are two examples where word of mouth, not hype, brought people into the theaters. Gone is the day of slowly and consistently building your box office returns. Today, if you don't make a massive amount opening weekend, your film is thrown to the very back theater with 2 rows of seats and one speaker (if it gets to remain in the multiplex at all).

I think in the end, the entertainment value, not the "quality" is what helps a film make loads of money. Sure the latest Pirates movie was destined to make a huge number on the first weekend, but it made its money past the 200 million mark from flat out being entertaining on some level to a large amount of folks. Same with a film like Jackass 2. I refuse to pay money at the local theater for tripe like that, but it entertains a group of folks on some level that it can make loads of money. So guess what? We will get Jackass 3 and again, I will ignore it yet its core audience will make all of its creators rich people just because they act like asses and film it. This, while someone making a small film who has actually gone to school to make films will struggle to get their film seen and will probably struggle to pay their rent. This, while Knoxville, Bam, Wee Man, Steve-O and company make loads. It just doesn't seem very fair, but hey, such is life. But alas, I digress

It is curious that the transfer of Returns is not that great. I wonder if that was a conscious "art" decision made by Singer? I saw the movie in an HD theater and it looked great. So I am rather surprised the DVD is not as sharp. I do know that during specific scenes, such as the ice berg, even in the HD theater it had a haze to it that I took as being purposeful effect.

There are many great movies that performed 'poorly' at the box office. Films like Oldboy and Lady Vengeance are artistically superior to s**te like Jackass 2 and Little Man, but they didn't perform exceptionally well at the UK/US box office because they are subtitled. How well did Donnie Darko do on its initial release? What about Fight Club? The Shawshank Redemption? They all have strong word-of-mouth followings now, but they didn't exactly set the box office alight.

Week after week, mind-numbing, middle-of-the-road c**p makes its way to the top of the box office by 'word of mouth'. Presumably from the mouths of people without taste.

As for the box office argument regarding Batman Begins vs. Superman Returns: yes, they both did make roughly 200m domestic, but you have to look at the expectation surrounding the two. Batman Begins was the FIFTH Batman movie in 15 years and was coming off what is considered one of the worst movies ever made (Batman and Robin, which grossed a mere 107m domestic). So when 'Begins' came out, the general consensus was that it would gross between 140-170m domestic...so the 200m was really an acheivement. As for Superman Returns, it was the first Superman movie in almost twenty years and had the biggest hype around of any movie outside of Star Wars (as well as name recognition). If you went to any box office site you'd see the predictions of its domestic gross in the 300m range, some in the high 300's...couple that with the budget, and the fact that it grossed 200m domestic is a disappointment (not a FLOP, mind you, but a disappointment). So that's really the difference.

As far as "box office gross not reflecting quality," that argument is so tired and has been debunked on many a box office site as well as movie site. Yes, a movie of poor quality can make a ton of money if it has enough hype (see - Phantom Menace), but anyone who follows box office realizes that a big part of a movie's b.o. take is dependent on word-of-mouth...the movies that are generally regarded as being bad usually drop 60-70% in its second weekend, whereas movies that are considered good have a smaller decline and goes on to make a pretty good take. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are not the rule...so please stop with the "box office does not equal quality" argument because it is a very banal and not well thought out one...

Jack, I've never been willing to drive that far for a movie. I live close enough to Eagan and Inver Groves that I usually go to one of those two. Though often there are bratty teenagers at Inver Grove.

Erik, I actually agree that quite often special effects featurettes are dull, I only mention the lack of one here to back up my assumption that there will be a better edition in the near future. I'm positive they filmed something. I graded the features a 7/10 because the extras felt unfinished all around. I don't actually care that much, personally, about digital effects, but I would like to have seen ALL the deleted scenes, some more about post production, and a director commentary. All these would've probably made the final score closer to a 9/10.

In referring to action sequences, is it just me or does anyone else think that the plane sequence in SR was rather lackluster. I mean, it could have been shot and edited to be much more exciting. It's ok, but when I watch it it's really just people being shoved back and forth with almost the same angle everytime. Also, when Superman is flying the camera just sits there for most of the time while he zooms in and out of frame instead of getting into the thick of things. It's just that everyone raves about it but I wasn't that impressed, does anyone else notice this, or is it just my personal view?

Why is a special edition incomplete without an effects featurette? One of the things I like about the Returns doc is the emphasis on design and production as opposed to post. The last post doc that wowed me was the Two Towers' feature about Gollum as it showed not just how they did it, but the thought process involved in deciding on those techniques. Most other similar featurettes or segments are very dry affairs. There's very little I see in the effects in SR that requires coverage. It's all off the shelf techniques they either did big or finessed slightly. And other than the minutae of how big the gimble was or how advanced the computers are, I doubt they did anything that hasn't been covered in other DVDs from the Matrix to Alone in the Dark.

To me, this is an overall problem with DVD Special Editions. How they make a man fly/get cut in half/appear as two people in the same shot is not nearly as interesting as how people interacted on set. DVD special features, however, tend to be lopsided toward very safe, dry, how they did it type docs.

There's also a part of me that doesn't want to know how they did it. Access to the magicians' cupboard has made me quite jaded.

Gabe Powers wrote: I'm guessing you saw the IMAX version at the zoo then, JackJack?

Hey Gage, I should have been more specific, we now have this theater, just outside Minneapolis in Monticello, MN:

The MULLER MONSTER SCREEN which is 80 feet wide and 35 feet tall, is the largest theatre screen in Minnesota. The auditorium seats nearly 600 people in high back rocker chair seats making it the best place to see the big releases.

This is the largest NON - IMAX screen in MN, it is TRUELY amazing thing to see a movie on. You can fit half a mega plex in this one theater.

I want to know why lesser quality films from Warner Bros. like Poseidon look better on DVD than Superman Returns does. Yes Superman Returns is not the most perfect film, and not what a lot of people hoped it to be, but it is still an above average film and not mediocre like some people think. I was so excited when this movie came out to DVD, and I'm such a huge fan of the Superman character as it is that I went out and bought the Superman Ultimate Collector's Edition. Superman: The Movie (1978) looks better on DVD than Superman Returns does! I don't understand why this movie got such a c**ppy deal. Before the movie even came out in theaters I was reading a lot of posts that were hating on the movie, saying that they hope the movie fails because it will come in direct competition with Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Since when does one movie garner such a fan base that the fans want every other movie to fail except the one they like? To me, Pirates of the Caribbean was one of the biggest letdowns this summer, it was nowhere near the quality of the first film, and people are on the internet praising it saying it is the new "Empire Strikes Back." Are these people on crack? I'm not saying it's a bad film, I still enjoyed it, but nowhere near as much as I did The Curse of the Black Pearl. Anyway, off the subject. I agree with Gabe that on the DVD the biggest problems occur in darkness or in shadow. It is as if during the transfer to DVD, the crew got halfway finished and said "the hell with it." I believe the movie deserves a better reputation, and MOST DEFINITELY a better DVD.

While I agree total box office is not an indicator of "quality", it is an indicator of enjoyment/entertainment. As noted, Dead Man's Chest, not matter how much I enjoyed it, I know it wasn't the best film of 2006.

Which is why I find it interesting that Superman Returns is seen as a failure at 200 million and Batman Begins is a triumph at 205 million.

And I have to totally disagree that Returns did not have any hill to climb in regard to the memory of Christopher Reeves. The film, and more specifically Routh, were pre-judged based on emotional feelings toward Reeves. I can't tell you how many people I personally know who stayed away from the film soley on the basis that Reeves was and is "the" Superman in their minds.

Here's the thing about no DTS........ Warner is notorious for not including DTS in virtually EVERY SINGLE DVD AND BLU-RAY DISC they ever released. I also believe that Warner is anti-DTS by their very nature. Warner could charge a few extra bucks to add the premium that DTS commands on it's DVDs/HD-DVDs/Blu-Ray discs, and I would be fine with that. More sadly, Warner could be making a hell of a lot more bucks by adding DTS to their discs. WB, go figure!

That's a funny review. I enjoyed Superman Returns as a re-establishing of Superman as an interesting character in his interaction with other people. Action scenes were flawless and Spacey made a cracking baddie too.

I'll pick this up in the Ultimate Collection at Christmas. I certainly look forward to the sequel.

RalphFiennes wrote: Is it not a contradiction to praise Parker Posey's "hilarious" performance and Kevin Spacey's "balance between funny and frightening and then refer to the film post-airplane-scene as humourless?

After the airplane rescue, the humour is sucked out of both of those characters, relatively, and we aren't given another pure comedy scene until the end, a scene I didn't find very funny.

This doesn't matter though, because my statement was referring to the entire film, of which there were nearly 2 more hours of. Besides, if you're going to nitpick me, at least quote me accurately. I said "humour is lacking", which implies humor is still present.

And as far as the budget goes, Chris, I find this one nessisary to the film review simply because it was so absurdly high, soo high that even pocketing 200 mil + at the box office wasn't enough to see a return. It's bizarre, and I don't think the budget really shows on screen. I've seen Peter Jackson make 3 films that looked even better and even more expensive for almost the same price as Superman Returns, and I think this misuse of cash says something about the creative minds behind the film.

Chris Gould wrote: I don't really understand this obsession with budgets that people seem to have. They have nothing to do with the artistic merit of a film, which is surely the overriding concern?

Agreed. Everyone I know rents the "blockbusters"... Just because it was a blockbuster doesn't make it better or worse... And at this point in time, when EVERY movie is labeled a disappointment only emphasizes the invalidity of earnings and etc. Spider-Man 3, will it make money? Hell yes. Will it be considered a success? Only time will tell but I'm sure many will call it a failure (financially).

I disagree. After the "Batman & Robin" circus, it was pretty much steep uphill from there. As far as grosses go, the expectations from "Superman Returns" were much higher than "Batman Begins." I suspect WB didn't believe that BB would reach $200M, which it did. Also, I'm one of those who think the Batman character is more fascinating because he's more down to earth (pun intended...), relatively speaking, of course. And it didn't hurt that it had a solid storyline, terrific actors (Qui-Gon-Jinn)and a good director. As far as Superman is concerned, I don't think, for one, that "overcoming the ghost of Chrisopher Reeve" was a factor. In my opinion it was too long, not creative enough storywise...couldn't they come up with something better than a Real estate scam? I think Routh was a good choice but Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane? come on! but in the end, I think the character of Superman has a far less "wow" factor. Now if Singer would bring Keyzer Soze for the sequel...now THAT'S a wow factor

On the total gross department, seems EVERYONE has forgotten Batman Begins made 205 million domestically, a mere 5 million more than Superman Returns, and 166 million overseas, almost 30 million LESS than Returns. Yet somehow Begin's box office is seen as a major success and Returns' box office is disappointing. You can point to the cost of Superman Returns, but then again that 270 million is from ALL of the start/stop attempts as well as the current costs. Also, Batman Begins was budgeted at 150 million. Singer brought home Superman Returns for 50 million more. But you also have to remember the effects for Superman are naturally going to be higher given you have a character that must be seen flying.

Maybe it is that the fanfare for Begins was much lower, the character is not as beloved by a general mass, but still, both of these films performed virtually the same domestically and overseas at the box office but the spin put on them is different, very interesting. People have to erase the 150 million budget compared to the 270 million. Point being, two films from successful comic and movie franchises were seen by the same amount of people. How that means one is a success and the other isn't just doesn't make sense to me.

Personally, given the disappointment of their last installments and especially Superman Returns' development from hell, BOTH films did well in restarting and reinvigorating their respective franchises.

Begins wiped away the camp of Batman & Robin. But in my opinion, Superman Returns had the much harder road to go. Not only did it have to improve upon a less than stellar 4th installment like Begins did (being kind there). Not only did it have to overcome a development from hell and back. But it had to also overcome the ghost of Christopher Reeves. Though the 3rd and 4th Supes movies were seen as disappointments, Reeves was still lauded for his Clark/Supes character. And then you have his accident, in which he showed he WAS a "Superman", damn, that is just something almost impossible to compare to. You throw all that in there, that Superman Returns made 200 million should be seen as a major achievement, not a disappointment. Begins didn't have a 1/4 of the obsticles to overcome seeing the light of a theater.

Is it not a contradiction to praise Parker Posey's "hilarious" performance and Kevin Spacey's "balance between funny and frightening and then refer to the film post-airplane-scene as humourless?

I personally loved the film and thought it was the best of the year so far. I don't mind that it only has a few action scenes, as Superman (at least on film) has often had a significan amount of run-time devoted to the conflict and repression that comes with his dual identity.

Frankly, I enjoyed it more than any of the other films I saw at the cinema this year.

I for one didn't like Batman Begins. It killed the mystery aspect of the Batman character. I still rank it higher than the Schumacher outings (but then, I'd rank *anything* higher than the Schumacher outings).

I personally found X3 to be much more satisfying from an emotional and pure action respect. I thought the 1st Xmen was weighted down with having to be an origin film with multiple characters. X2 was an improvement, but still, I just wasn't pulled in. Just something about X3 I found much more satisfying. I know that is blasphamy to the hardcore comic fans, but not being a fan of the comics, just from a purely film respect, I enjoyed it more than the other 2 X films.

I can't find the freak'n Ultimate collection anwywhere in town!!!! The single and double disks of REturns can be found in abundance, but the Reeves and Ultimate box sets are MIA.

We have had almost a life-long love of Richard Donner's Superman movie. Though it had a little tongue-in-cheek, there was a sincerity to it that elevated above previous attempts to bring a superhero to life.

We happened to watch Superman Returns twice during its' theatrical run in the UK, and we loved it when we saw it the first time, but during the second viewing, the cracks REALLY started to show.

If internet rumours are to be believed, the second movie (for which Singer and Brandon Routh have both signed on) will be a lot more economical and more action-orientated. They appear to be taking the Richard Lester Superman II approach.

Superman Returns wasn't NEARLY the big box-office bonanza Warner Bros thought it would be, as they kept it in theatres just long enough to limp past the gross required to delcare it a success and commission a sequel.

Our opinion on X-Men: The Last Stand - it is quite possibly the quintessential popcorn movie, being like a bag of popcorn - you can happily munch through it but when it's over, you find yourself wishing that you had taken in something more substantial...

I really wish that X3 and Superman Returns had been released a year apart because there's really no point in comparing them. I admit that my mention of the mutant dump-zone in my review may've contributed to the problem. I've made it pretty clear how much I was burned by X3 in the site forums over the past 6 months, I thought it was half great, and half garbage. I think that comparing Superman Returns to the original films is a more constructive critisism. Or even X-men 2.

Did'nt like this at all, although I might give it a whirl under the influence of alcohol, now that I have my Ultimate Collection set. Watched the Donner cut of II last night, and I actually had a tear in my eye watching it. Despite all its flaws, it was beautiful, and showed that Donner was right all along. On a side note, I enjoyed X-3 much more than Superman Returns, which was also highly flawed, and also Hulk, which is destined for cult greatness, I hope. I can understand why people don't like it, though, although it seems a bit daft calling a comic book film 'too comic book' in its design, and execution. A bit like calling Shakespeare a bit 'too Shakespeare'...

I must have my switches crossed or something. Money-grubbing executives aside, I found "X-Men: The Last Stand" to be a dramatically and emotionally satisfying conclusion to the trilogy ... a success on just about every level. (I should note that while I'm a big comics fan in general, I have never been able to get into the X-Men comics, nor did the original Dark Phoenix saga do anything for me.) I'm sorry Marsden got the shaft, but to be honest I never cared much for his character in the first place. "Last Stand" did just fine by me, and I was happy to buy the DVD.

By contrast, I found "Superman Returns" to be a turgid mess. I love the character of Superman (I feel he was best-realized in the animated series created by Dini/Timm). I can appreciate Singer's aspirations, I was just totally turned off by his approach. I can enjoy Superman stories with deeper issues on their mind -- but not when it comes completely at the expense of color and fun. All of Gabe's criticisms apply -- but I think they irked me more than they irked him.

I'm also a film music geek ... and while John Powell really rose to the occasion with X3, crafting a dynamic and memorable score rich in texture and melodic development, John Ottman alternately bored me and annoyed me with his shapeless, flat writing and dumbing-down of John Williams' original orchestrations/arrangements. Film Score Monthly's SR podcast (No. 14, available for free download via iTunes) does a good job of expressing my frustration with Ottman's effort.

In short, when doing my DVD shopping today, I was more than content to pick up "The Christopher Reeve Collection". (Advance reviews have killed any interest I had in owning "Superman II: The Donner Cut", and the "Look Up In The Sky" documentary, while sporadically interesting, spends way too much time on "Superman Returns", which I disliked, and completely glosses over the 90s animated series, which I cherish. So, nice packaging and a few exclusive docs aside, the "Ultimate" collection was a "no sale".)

I liked Superman Returns. I am am VERY HAPPY to have gotten the ultimate edition. Like mentioned by Gabriel in his reveiw, there is WAY TOO MUCH missing on the extras features for Supeman returns, I love 3 hours of behind the scenes stuff but where is all the post production features, all the CGI work done in this film? No DTS and no commentary? I'm pretty sure there will be a SUPER DUPER edition somtime in the future.

Now for my BIG gripe. I think the video transfer on this film is PRETTY BAD. Very grainy, especially in dark scenes. After seeing this on the largest Screen in Minnesota 3 times and the image being clear and pristine. I was expecting ALOT MORE in video quality. I bet the Blu-Ray and HD are flawless but the standard dvd which most americans, 99.9% are consumers of got screwed over. This should have been an absolutely FLAWLESS transfer ands it's like they ADDED noise to the image to make the HD/Blu-Ray look better.

It makes me angry as a consumer to $70.00 on the ULTIMATE EDITION and get a sub par, noises video transfer when I expected to be AMAZING. Maybe this has to do with the fact that this film was shot on a never before used new PANAVISION HD camera that sony helped build. Maybe this new camera had a problem dealing with very dark images filmed, who knows, we may never know. OK, enough about my rant on the video quality of superman returns.

Over I really like this movie, I think it has plenty of action, just to many lex luthor scenes that drag down the last half of the film.

Last, I'm not sure what to think of the Donner cut of Superman 2. Was OK, maybe I need to watch it a few more times. I think donner tryed to cut as much LESTER changes to the film as he could and only keep as possible to keep some sort of coherant story. It was definately alot less campy and funny.

I love this movie as much as I love "Superman 2". I think that Superman can't be darker than what he was in the original movie, but the times change and Singer wanted to make it more suitable to today's audiences. I will definately give the sequel a try. In my opinion, the best so far is "Superman: The Movie" by Donner.

I didn't like the "Hulk" when it was first released and I was also expecting him to be smashing things all throughout the movie. Back then I was like any other teen wanting to see stuff blow up. Boy was I wrong about that film. I bought it around a year ago and, in my opinion, I think its one of the best Superhero movies out there along with X-Men 2, Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2.

I have nothing to say about X-Men 3 other than to feel sorry for all of us who wanted something more out of the 'final' chapter of the 'trilogy'.

"Batman Begins" gave new and fresh life to the character/franchise. I hope the sequels surpass what Begins established.

stanton heck wrote: I love the Donner Movie! To this day I hate Batman because it had no heart and I didn't give a s**t about anybody! In Superman we love Lois! We fell in Love with Lois the way Superman did!

Ummmm, exactly? That's the point of Batman. Gotham is rotten, Batman is a vigilante, not a "boy scout relic" in a bright and happy Metropolis. Batman has had many "lady loves" over the years, Superman has one, Lois, and only Lois (Lana is the past, when he was Clark Kent of Smallville (and no, not the c**ppy TV show)). The Batman films had plenty of heart, just a stone cold, dead, black one.

I'm another of those who thought Hulk has been given far too much c**p from the "Hulk must crush things" crowd. I love that film for all the reasons Gabe listed.

Same goes for Superman Returns. I loved this film and can't wait to watch it again.

I'm tell you folks, now that the DVD is out, take the DVD for the Donner film and Returns. Keep track of the total time afforded the action sequences and you will find there is as much action in Supes 06 as there is in Supes 78. Do the same for the "romantic" scenes. You will find almost the exact amount of time spent in Supes 78 as is spent in Supes 06.

Aren't you bored of action movies Dicky? I haven't seen a good one in a long time, and of all the things that were bad about X3, the action was pretty high on the list. Action was the one thing I expected out of that film after interesting directors like Singer, Poryas, Whedon, and Matthew Vaughn were no longer attached.

Superman Returns was light on action, but the few action scenes were well directed, with a nice sense of geography and physics.

The two films, however, are only compareable as comic book films released the same year, otherwise they're completely different films with completely different goals. X3 wanted to thrill an audience and make as much money as possible. Superman Returns wanted to be something more. It may have failed on many levels, but I don't see it as a money making ploy on the parts of the creative staff.

I am no Xmen expert by any stretch of the imagination, but as a viewer of all 3 films I preferred the Last Stand to the first 2 by miles. I thought it was much better than the first 2 though the dialogue at times was a bit juvanile, they had far more action which is want I want from films of this kind. Even tho I know the comic fans want character development more.

Was disappointed in SR but I do love the first. Too much love story BS. I mean they are comic books who gives a s**t about love, bring on the action!

was really letdown by the 5.1 on the DVD. I had to crank up the volume to about 41 to get the apartment to rattle during the action scenes. the music can be heard in all it’s melodramatic glory but not the sound. probably need to check my wiring since everyone praises the sound so much

and I can't wait for this review thread to turn into another X3 vs. Superman Returns battle. wonder who will get banned this time

The Richard Donner film was campy? You compare it to the Batman's 60's show?? Bryan Singer was responsible for X3's failure???

No, no, no.

Donner's film played on the idea of a Superhero in a realistic world. His main goal and philosophy behind the film was to avoid the campyness of the 60's Batman show.

Singer choose the job he wanted and said to Fox that he would be happy to direct X3 after he finished Superman. Singer didn't have anything to do with X3 nor was it his responsibility to make it. I think many directors would and clearly have jumped at the chance of Directing a Superman Movie. Who'd blame him.

Great review, both sides are shown, and that's good. I actually liked how, like in real life, the world has moved on from Superman, we no longer need him to give us hope, while at the same time, we need him more than ever. Spacey was Lex Luthor, Hackman was good, but too campy. Bosworth... I'm sure she'll grow on me, just one thing I can't get past is the stark change of character, but 5 years, people change. Routh as Superman, stellar casting, he looks and acts almost exactly like CR and it makes for a perfect character. The plot... Yes, repeptitive, but not boring. The character study is what made me go see this twice (IMAX version, dizzyness ). Overall well made, I probably would give it an 8 or 8.5. Too bad the video is sub par (in comparison).

I really liked this film. Its not fantastic by any means but still very good. Singer has set up a very strong base to launch more bigger and better films from. The sequel should be something to look out for.

As for Warners new Two-Disc Special Edition DVD, the bonus material are good but I really wish Warner would put commentaries on their films. I would have loved to hear what Singer and his crew had to say. But you do get some of that on the doc so its alright.

If your a fan, pick it up. But I agree with Gabe, the film is depressing and that might turn some off, sadly.